ONE
OF the world's leading cosmetic companies planned to sidestep
an EU animal-testing ban by conducting the experiments outside
Europe, according to a leaked memo.

Proctor & Gamble, which makes Head & Shoulders shampoo
and Max Factor make-up, and also owns IAMS pet foods, proposed
testing cosmetic ingredients outside the EU while being "able
to market them in EU countries".

An internal memo sent to its chairman, Alan Lafley, by Barbara
Slatt, a senior US executive, also revealed the company planned
to lobby governments to delay the EU legislation by up to 10
years.

In the memo, dated 18 June 2002, Ms Slatt said it was important
to keep P&G out of the "media spotlight". She
warned: "It would be damaging to be seen as the company
lobbying to test on animals, against public opinion."

Outlawed

Britain
banned animal testing for cosmetics in 1998 and the European
Parliament voted earlier this year to introduce an EU-wide
testing ban. Member governments will meet MEPs this week to
try to reach a deal on the legislation.

An amendment to the European Cosmetics Directive, which would
have outlawed the sale in Europe of products tested on animals
anywhere, had to be abandoned. Most EU members, including
Britain, opposed a sales ban because they believed it would
contravene world trade laws.

There is no suggestion that the company planned to break EU
law. However, Ms Slatt suggested that P&G lobby against
the parliament and develop a "fallback position"
to ensure a ban on marketing cosmetics tested on animals was
delayed.

"We must work with MS [member state] governments to ensure
that they oppose the restrictive position of the parliament,
and that an acceptable compromise can be achieved."

Ms Slatt suggested the company could continue testing outside
the EU if the directive came into force. "A cosmetics
testing ban in Europe is expected to be manageable, since
the vast majority of our safety testing is conducted elsewhere.
We are in a more favourable position than regional EU cosmetic
companies ... We can still carry out safety tests for other
GBU's [global business units] and apply the results to cosmetics.
Equally, we can conduct tests on cosmetic ingredients for
regulatory purposes outside of the EU and still be able to
market them in EU countries."

Wendy Higgins, the campaigns director of the British Union
for the Abolition of Vivisection, accused P&G of trying
to hide its position on animal testing. "They know that
people are unlikely to buy products that have been tested
on animals."

P&G said it did not comment on internal documents but
insisted it was "committed to the elimination of animal
testing" while ensuring products were safe and complied
with safety legislation across the world.

A P&G spokesman said: "It is our intent to fully
abide by the letter and the spirit of any future EU law. Therefore,
like many others, we are seeking a middle- ground option that
ensures human safety but allows a realistic time for development,
validation and, importantly, government regulatory approval
in those areas where alternatives are still required. P&G
has already invested £103m in developing alternatives
to animal testing and are very active in the EU Scientific
Committee developing alternatives.

Firing line

"P&G
has already stopped finished product tests on all non-drug,
non-food products and only tests on animals where required
by law or where no validated alternative exists."


Last year, Proctor & Gamble were in the firing line when
animal rights campaigners distributed literature at Crufts
claiming that the companys IAMS pet food division had
conducted invasive and fatal tests on dogs and cats to monitor
effects of the food. The claims were rebutted by an IAMS division
spokesperson who stated that the tests had been conducted
several years previously in American Universities and that
the company now had a strict policy not to conduct invasive
and harmful tests on animals.